## Facts

- iPhone users brought a putative consumer class action against Apple alleging privacy-related misrepresentations under California’s CLRA and UCL.
- Plaintiffs pursued two theories:
  - Third-party apps obtained through Apple’s App Store allegedly collected and transmitted personal information to advertisers/analytics companies without users’ knowledge or consent.
  - A software bug allegedly caused certain iPhones to transmit Wi‑Fi hotspot and cell-tower data even when Location Services was turned off (later corrected in an iOS update).
- Plaintiffs pointed to Apple statements suggesting Apple safeguarded personal information and that users could disable location-based services.
- Plaintiffs claimed economic injury based on:
  - Overpayment/benefit-of-the-bargain (they allegedly paid a premium for privacy protections they did not receive).
  - Resource consumption (alleged battery, bandwidth, and storage use from undisclosed transmissions).
- The record showed none of the named plaintiffs read Apple’s privacy policy or other challenged representations before buying their iPhones.
- After purchase, one plaintiff read an iTunes disclosure agreement, and an Apple store employee allegedly told a plaintiff she could turn off Location Services to prevent location tracking.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence of a concrete, non-speculative economic injury sufficient for Article III standing and for UCL “lost money or property” and CLRA damages.
2. Whether plaintiffs could prove reliance and causation for CLRA and UCL fraud-based theories given their lack of exposure to alleged misrepresentations before purchase.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ injury and causation theories were susceptible to class-wide proof rather than speculation or individualized showings.

## Decision

- The court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment on the remaining CLRA and UCL claims.
- Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of a non-speculative economic injury attributable to the alleged privacy-related misrepresentations or omissions.
- Plaintiffs failed to establish reliance and causation because they did not read or otherwise encounter the challenged statements before purchasing their devices, and post-purchase exposures were not tied to a compensable economic loss.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact that is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
- UCL standing requires proof of “lost money or property” caused by the challenged conduct; CLRA relief requires damages caused by the alleged misrepresentation.
- A bare assertion that a product was “worth less” than the purchase price, without evidence of an actual price premium or measurable overcharge, is insufficient.
- For CLRA and UCL fraud-based theories, plaintiffs must prove actual reliance and that the misrepresentation was an immediate cause of the injury-producing conduct; non-exposure to the statement before purchase generally defeats reliance and causation.
- Alleged harms from battery, bandwidth, or storage use must be quantified and tied to concrete economic loss; unmeasured or de minimis technical effects do not establish damages.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for Apple because plaintiffs could not show a concrete economic loss or establish that any alleged privacy-related misrepresentation caused their purchasing decisions or a measurable loss, defeating both standing and essential elements of the CLRA and UCL claims.


In re iPhone Application Litig., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2013)